Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Keller v. Haas, 12 So. 2d 238.

44 citing documents.

Tealwood Properties, LLC v. Succession of Graves 105 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
This cause of action as expressed in Keller v. Haas, supra [ , ], and described by Professor Morris, supra [Glenn G. Morris, Piercing the Corporate Veil in Louisiana, 52 La.
Tealwood Properties, L.L.C. v. Succession of Graves 64 So. 3d 397 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
(1943), involved a shareholder’s obligation to his co-owners of a tract of land after he had purchased the land at a tax sale and placed title to the land in his closely-held corporation.
Riggins v. Dixie Shoring Co., Inc. 577 So. 2d 1060 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
In Louisiana, , (1943): "It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stock holder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility."
Professional Occupational Therapy Services, Inc. v. Vanco Human Services, Inc. 572 So. 2d 331 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
2nd Cir.1962); , (1943), affirmed 209 La.
TL James & Co. v. Kenner Landing, Inc. 550 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1990
(1943); see generally, Comment 38 Tul.L.
Distinguished Casson v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 548 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
In Louisiana, , which is found on page 240: `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from re
Quaglino Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Barr 519 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Distinguished Coury v. Coury Moss, Inc. 510 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
In Louisiana, , which is found on page 240: `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from re
Distinguished Sutton's Steel & Supply, Inc. v. Van Stavern 496 So. 2d 1360 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
In Louisiana, , which is found on page 240: `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from re
West Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Daley 476 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
In Louisiana, , which is found on page 240: `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from re
James Harvey Ramsey Estate, Inc. v. Pace 467 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
(1943); Cattle Farms, (La.App.
Entech Systems Corp. v. Gaffney 466 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
(1943); see generally, Comment 38 Tul.L.
Harris v. Best of America Inc. 466 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
2nd Cir.1962); , (1943), affirmed 209 La.
American Bank of Welch v. Smith Aviation, Inc. 433 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Hock v. Sea Camper of New Orleans, Inc. 419 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
Rivers v. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. 389 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Smith-Hearron v. Frazier, Inc. 352 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Johansen v. Port Jewell Inc. 351 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
2nd Cir., 1976); , (1943); Evergreen Plantation, (La.App.
Dillman v. Nobles 351 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
In Louisiana, courts usually base this rule upon the often-quoted language of Keller v. Hass, [ , ] supra: `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility.
Sampay v. Davis 342 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Kingsman Enterprises, Inc. v. Bakerfield Elec. Co., Inc. 339 So. 2d 1280 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Several cases are cited by appellant in support of this theory, e. g., , (1943); Bossier Millwork & Supply Company v. D. & R. Construction Company, Inc., (La.App.
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. 330 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Brown, an employee of the creosoting corporation, sought to recover workmen's compensation benefits against Kennedy Sawmills, Inc. The court held for recovery stating: "The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., is the mere alter ego of Benton Creosoting Co., , ; Lindstrom v. Sauer, La.App.
Evergreen Plantation, Inc. v. Zunamon 319 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
As to when such a situation exists, the Louisiana Supreme Court said in Keller v. *547 Haas, , (1943): "It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility.
Noe v. Roussel 310 So. 2d 806 La. 1975
Menard v. Associated Royal Crown Bottling Co. 249 So. 2d 363 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
157 (E.D.La.1964); Keller v. *365 Haas, , (1943); (La.App.
National Bank of Commerce v. Hughes-Walsh Co. 246 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
And in the case of Shreveport Sash & Door Company v. Ray, La.App., at 437 (2nd Cir. 1963), the Court stated: "Thus, it was said in Keller et al. v. Haas, et al., , (1943): `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility.'" (Emphasis added
Carmouche v. Sylvester House Moving, Inc. 244 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1943), as follows: “It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility.” The
Guilbeau v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co. 232 So. 2d 67 La. 1970
Texas Industries, Inc. v. Dupuy & Dupuy Develop., Inc. 227 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
The several cases cited and relied upon by plaintiff-appellee, , (1943); Giuffria Realty Company v. Kathman-Landry, Inc., Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co., Inc., supra; Lindstrom v. Sauer, 166 So.
Cattle Farms, Inc. v. Abercrombie 211 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
A similar attempt to create a , .
Hebert v. Wiegand 207 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
(1943); Shreveport Sash & (La.App.
Hirsh v. Miller 181 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
309 , (1951); , (1943); J. Alfred Mouton, Inc. v. Hebert, 199 So.
Giuffria Realty Company v. Kathman-Landry, Inc. 173 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Co., 274 F.2d 320 (5th Cir.); , ; Shamrock Oil & Gas Co. v. Ethridge, D. C., 159 F.Supp.
Hirsh v. Miller 167 So. 2d 539 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
309 , ; , ; Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co., La.App., .
Johnson v. Kinchen 160 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
In support of his position, able counsel for appellant relies heavily upon the rule, and the cases cited as authorities therefor, reiterated in the following language appearing in Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co., La.App., : "* * * As was stated in Keller v. Haas, [ , ] supra: " `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of
Shreveport Sash & Door Company v. Ray 159 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
*437 Thus, it was said in Keller et al. v. Haas, et al., , (1943): "It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility."
National Surety Corporation v. Pope 147 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co. 147 So. 2d 89 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., is the mere alter ego of Benton Creosoting Co., , ; Lindstrom v. Sauer, La.App.
Welsh v. Lagasse 128 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1961
Ensminger v. Vampran, La.App., ; , ; Harrell v. Harrell, 174 La.
Kennedy v. Pope Park, Inc. 109 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
the Supreme Court said: “It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibi
Robinson v. Commercial Cattle Co. 82 So. 2d 108 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
There is no question that under a , , Id., 209 La.
Meraux v. R. R. Barrow, Inc. 52 So. 2d 863 La. 1951
240: “It is contended that the Haas Investment Company, Inc. is an innocent purchaser of the property on the faith of the public records and that it is not affected by the unregistered equities of the co-owners.
S. H. Hanville Lumber & Export Co. v. C-B Lumber Co. 52 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
Keller v. Haas 24 So. 2d 610 La. 1945